
£.31 



Gass__ 
Book^Cdl/- 



/ 



J 7^7^ 



SPEECH 






MR. GUSHING, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 



y^ 



THE POST OFFICE BILL. 



Delivered in the House of Representatives, August 25, 1841. 




WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED BY GALES AND SEATON. 

1841. 



f^ 



u'i 



c^f' 



SFKKCH. 



Mr. CusHiJNti said he was conscious the members ol' the committee were 
anxious to take the question, and he would not have risen to address them 
but for some reflections on the character and conduct of the President of 
tlie United States which had been introduced into tlie debate by the gen- 
tleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Aknold,] and the gentleman from Virginia. 
[Mr. BoTTs,] which were of far more consequence to the House and the 
country than the subject properly under consideration. Before replying, 
however, to the remarks of those gentlemen, being up, he would make 
some observations as to the bill itself 

[That part of the speech which relates to the Post Office Department is 
omitted.] 

Mr. C. siiid he would now leave the immediate queslioti of this bill, and 
come to the other subject of debate, viz. the remarks made this morning by 
the gentleman Irom Tennessee, [Mr. Aunold,] and the gentleman from 
Virginia, [Mr. Botts.] Mr. C, had learned in this House to regard both 
those gentlemen with personal respect, and he should say nothing on this 
occasion incompatible with that sentiment. He conceded to them the priv- 
ilege of thinking and speaking for themselves ; nay, it was not a thing to be 
conceded to them ; it was their right, their indefeasible right, to speak on 
this floor with freedom and independence, whether their sentiments were 
in accordance with his or not. It was their right as Representatives of 
the People to express their sentiments. God forbid that he should desire 
to prevent their doing so, in this or any other matter. He, Mr. C, was 
not in the House when the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Arnold] ut- 
tered the expression supposed to have reference to the President of the Uni- 
ted States, upon which the gentleman had been called to order. Mr. C. 
(lid not know that he could have concurred in arresting the remarks of the 
•lentleman from Tennessee if he had been present. The opinions and the 
conduct of the President of the United States, at any rate his official opin- 
ions and conduct, v/ere a fair subject of criticism, of censure, nay, of oblo- 
quy in this House, if any member of it chose to descend to the use of ob- 
loquy in such a relation. As to the precise terms in which any official acts 
of the President Avere to be characterized by any member of the House, 
that was a question more concerning the honor of the member himself than 
that of the President. If the gentleman from Tennessee used the language 
which he, Mr. C, had heard ascribed to him, be it so. Bad taste, or bad 
temper even, in debate here, was to be tolerated, as one of the vices of lib- 
erty, to be sure; but yet in the suppression of which there might be danger 
of suppressing Uberty itself; and he was willing to accept the evils of free-, 
(lorn along side of its blessings. He believed that those blessings would 
incomparably outweigh any of the necessary evils attendant upon them, 
and he was willit)g to accommodate himself to those evils, rather than run 
any risk of losing those blessings. And therefore it was not the particular 
phraseology, it was not the spirit even, (objectionable as that was,) of the 
remarks of the gentlemarj from Tennessee; or those of the gentleman from 



which he hoped, at the next session, to see separated from the question of 
the right of petition, and tlius rendered susceptible of ready settlement, so 
fur as this House was concerned. After this brief delay, we entered upon 
the business of the session. And mark the magnitude of tlie measures which 
Congress liad already dealt with, and the energy with which they had been 
carried through the House. 

The House had, in the first place, passed the Loan Bill, by which the 
floating debt incurred by the last Administration was separated from the 
current dealings of the present, and placed by itself, with a pledge on our 
part, however, that it should be extinguished and paid by the pitsent Ad- 
ministration. In the second place, we luive passed the Land Distribution 
Bill, wliich, in his, Mr. C.'s eye, if it had no other merit, was entitled to 
the Inghest consideration in being, at the same time, a permanent prospec- 
tive Pre-emption Bill. Then we had passed the Revenue Bill, and he would 
say in regard to that, though he voted for it with extreme reluctance on 
account of various objections of detail, and with the greater reluctance 
because in that vote he diflered from some of his respected colleagues, yet 
he thought it was due to principle that, at all hazards of personal or party 
popularity, we should not shamble on from indebtedness to indebtedness, 
and should at once provide means to meet the debts, and carry on business 
of the Government. Next we had passed sundry great measures of public 
defence, for llie augmentation of our naval armament and the prosecution 
of our land defences, which bills alone were enough to do honor to a Con- 
gress. Next we had passed that great act of humanity and of justice, as 
well as of mercy, the Bankrupt Bill, by which so many thousands of our 
fellow citizens would be emancipated from the servitude of a state of in- 
solvency, which was alike injurious to creditors and debtors. Finally, we 
had swept from the statute book, not only the Sub-Treasury Act— the sole 
measure of Mr. Van Buren's Administration — but also, the Deposite Act, 
the chief measure of General Jackson's second period ; and have thus 
effectually put the stamp of the public reprobation upon all the financial 
policy of the last Administrations. Several of these bills had already re- 
ceived the sanction of the Executive, had become the law of the land, and 
were beginning, already, to exert a salutary influence in the country ; and 
in all of them there existed, between the Executive and the two houses of 
Congress, a sentiment of cordial co-operation and of common solicitude for 
their passage. 

Now, let the House ponder, for a moment, on these facts. Mr. C. said 
that we might in vain look back into the recent history of the country for 
any thing to parallel these great events. He would aver, and defy any 
man to contradict him, — he would aver that you might run over the legis- 
lative history of the last eight years, — that not only had no previous Con- 
gress adopted measures of legislation of so much magnitude, so much 
value, and so deeply exciting and important in character to the People of 
the United States, as this Congress has done ; but that, in tlie eight brief 
weeks of the present Congress, we might proudly point to the completion 
of more great measures than have been accomplished in all the eight pre- 
cedini*: years oj the last two jidministrations. We had done great 
things ; we had manifested the patriotism of Whig principles, the dignity 
and efficiency of Wliig government; and, happen what might for the 
future, thus much was secure, and nothing could deprive the Administra- 
tion of John Tyler of the glory of having effected these great, these noble 
things, for the lionor and the prosperity of the People of the United States. 



Mr. C said tliat these coiisideiatiotis were ;i pertinent introduction to the 
inquiry whether the President of the United States had heen guilty of treach- 
ery to his party and his country. Was any man justified in making this 
heinous accusation? Upon what cause ? For what pretext? Not be- 
cause he and we had acted together so gloriously and so nobly in the great 
measures which Mr. C. had enumerated ; but, forsooth, simply because 
Congress and the President had differed in opinion upon a single question, 
that of a bank, and for this difference the President is wantonly charged 
with a foul violation of faith and honor. Mr. C. said there never was a 
more groundless accusation, — one more totally destitute of all foundation 
in truth and in fact. 

In the first place, when and where was Mr. Tyler pledged to the Bank 
Bills of the present session? When and where was he pledged to any 
bank ? Never, any where. Take the proceedings of the liarrisburg Con- 
vention as one of a hundred tests in regard to this question. Was the Bank 
Bill, in any of its shapes, drawn out at that Convention, and submitted to 
him, to be made the subject of a pledge on his part ? Was any bank ? 
Was any bank idea ? Every man in the United States knows tliat no 
such thing was made the subject of pledge at that Convention. On the 
contrary, all specific pledges of any sort were purposely excluded. Mr. 
Tyler's own opinions upon that subject were a matter of notoriety, as 
were General Harrison's; and in the face of those opinions they were 
nominated by the Convention. 

Mr. C. said he would go further : not only was not General Harrison, 
and least of all Mr. Tyler, pledged to these particular Bank Bills, or any 
other form of a United States Bank, but the whole party itself was alike 
unpledged. He believed the precise fact to be, that, although the issue of 
Bank or No Bank was tendered to the Whigs by the other party, and at- 
tempts were made by that party to represent the idea of a bank as the 
specific and discriminating characteristic of Whiggery, yet that issue was 
refused, and that idea repudiated, if not universally, yet very generally, 
by the organs and the orators of the Whigs. And, if, as he, Mr. C, be- 
lieved, this was the true and the precise state of the case, then it is not the 
President of the United States who is guilty of perfidy towards us : but if 
we insist that a bank is exclusively the essence of Whig principles, then it 
is ive who are guilty of perfidy towards the President, and not towards 
the President only, but towards the entire People of the United States. 
For, if the premises, upon which the gentleman from Tennessee and the 
gentleman from Virginia proceed in arraigning the conduct of the Presi- 
dent are true, then the Whig party had foisted itself into power by con- 
cealing from the People of the United States the true issue. 

Mr. C. admitted that throughout the controversy, at any rate wherever 
he was, and he addressed public assemblies in many of the States and on 
numerous occasions, he admitted that the Whig party did undertake to 
settle the Currency Question. They undertook to settle it upon principles 
consistent with the prosperity and interests of the People of the United 
States. They condemned the currency measures of the last Administra- 
tion ; they undertook to change its measures and to introduce better 
ones; they denounced the sub-Treasury; but in doing so they left them- 
selves open and uncommitted as to the precise means of settling that ques- 
tion. If the thoughts of many gentlemen, perhaps of most, were turned 



8 

towards the idea of a United Stales Bank, yet, in the minds of many others^ 
that was an unsettled question ; and in the minds of all, scope was reserved 
as to the time of introducing such a measure, and as to its precise details. 
That was left, by common consent, for discussion and consideration when 
the time for action should arrive. 

Mr. C. said that, in repeaUng the Sub-Treasury Act, Congress and the 
President had redeemed the only distinct and notorious pledge in this mat- 
ter of the currency, to the immediate execution of which they were held, 
111 his opinion, by the events of the late canvass for the Presidency. What 
should next be done was a thing for calm and mature reflection. 

Mr. C. said he had voted for both of the Bank Bills that passed this 
House. He had done so, not because he approved entirely either of those 
bills, hut because there was nothing in his past or present opinions to pre- 
vent Ihm from acquiescing in that respect in the wishes of a majority of 
his political friends in the House. He believed, for himself, that a United 
States Bank, duly constituted, and with proper guards, was one, but not 
the only, mode of settling the Currency Question. If he had been master 
of the event, and had been called upon to frame a bank bill, it would have 
differed m terially from both those bills. But he voted for them in defer- 
once to the opinion of his party associates in this House ; and for himself 
he was willing to accept their opinions, and to act with them, as he had 
done at the present extra session, so long as, without violating any con- 
scientious conviction of right, he could do so. 

But, whilst himself pursuing this course, he did not conceive that, because 
any gentleman might have happened to differ from him, therefore he had 
any right to denounce any such gentleman. He abjured, for instance, all 
claim of right to denounce the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Marshall,] 
or his colleague from Massachusetts, [Mr. Adams,] because they had seen 
fit to vote against the first Bank Bill. They had put iheir votes upon con- 
siderations of conscience and honor ; he believed them to be sincere then, 
and he believed so still Thus putting their votes upon their conscience 
and honor, though thus differing from the great body of their friends, no 
man had a right to arraign their conduct, or insinuate any charge of treach- 
ery. x\nd in the same way that those two gentlemen had a right to differ 
with their party associates on the Bank Bill, so had his colleagues [Mr. 
WiNTHROP and Mr. Saltonstall] in regard to the Revenue Bill. So 
also had the gentlemen from Georgia a right to act on their separate judg- 
ment of the Land Bill ; and the gentlemen from Kentucky and Virginia on 
the Bankrupt Bill. So he contended was the President of the United States 
entitled to the same right of conscience, and to exercise the same privilege 
of individual judgment in his legislative action, on bills presented to him 
by Congress, and to approve them or not, according to liis conscientious 
convictions of what is or is not constitutional or just. 

Nay, the President of the United States was not only entitled to the 
same rights of conscience with any individual member of the House, but 
such separate exercise of his own judgment, and individual submission 
to the dictates of his own conscience, were expressly imposed upon him, 
as a distinct branch of the Government, by the very letter of the Con- 
stitution. As an individual, he was bound to follow the dictates of con- 
science, by all those considerations, moral and religious, which apply to 
individual members of the House. As the President of the United States 
he was officially responsible to God, to Congress, and to his Country, for 



conscientious deference to the i)ositive command ol the Constiuuion, which 
requires liim, upon his oath as President, if he conscientiously disapproves 
of any bill, to return the same to the House in wliicli it originated. And 
in no point of view, therefore, in which this subject could be regarded, 
did it become us to say that the President of the United States, invested 
with such high functions, and sworn to obey the Constitution, — to say that 
he should not exercise the right of conscience according to the letter and 
spirit of the Constitution, and to charge him with treachery to party for 
doing that which, with his opinions and convictions, it would be treacliery 
to God and the Constitution not to do, 

Mr. C. said that this was the light in which he viewed tlie rights and 
duties of the Whigs as a party, of each member of it, and especially of the 
President himself He had pictured to himself a magnificent, a sublime 
future of high and extraordinary usefulness for the party now in power. 
It depended upon them, and them alone, whether those anticipations should 
be realized or not. It could not de denied that, at this moment, we were 
placed in a most critical position : that was too painfully obvious to univer- 
sal observation. And the practical question which that party had now to 
decide for itself, as well the members of it among the People at large as 
their Representatives here in Congress, was, whether they would concede 
to each other, and not only to each other, but, above all, to the President 
of the United States, as the actual chief of the party and constitutional 
iiead of the Government, the right of conscientious judgment ; or whether, 
descending from that broad platform of catholic forbearance and mutual 
respect, upon which they had originally assembled to organize victory un- 
der the banner of -'Tippecanoe and Tyler too," they should take up one of 
the extreme opinions of the many varying opinions existing among them, 
and erect that one extreme opinion, to the exclusion of any and all others, 
into the true and only test of Whigism. Was the United States Bank the 
beginning, the middle, and the end of Whigism ? Was there Whigism hi 
this, and this alone? and out of this no Whigism? You had no more 
right to make this an exclusive test doctrine, and to denounce and proscribe 
all dissentients, than you had to make any other of the opinions of any sec- 
lion or individuals the exclusive test of Whigism. He scouted and re- 
pelled the idea of any such extravagant exclusiveness, and intolerant bigo- 
try of opinion. Should we undertake to repel from us a member of this 
House for difiering with the majority on one of the measures of the ses- 
sion ? Should wc, of the House, undertake to proscribe and unchurch the 
Senate, if that body should happen to differ with the House on one of 
tliose measures, or the Senate to proscribe the House for such a diflerence? 
Should we, above all, undertake, in an exclusive and extreme view of any 
one of those measures, to proscribe the President for such a diflerence .'' 
We might attempt to do this if we chose; but all we should accomplish in 
such an attempt would be the stiicidal destruction of our own party, and 
the cowardly abandonment of the power which the People of the United 
States have placed in our hands. 

The People of the United States had called us to a great and holy mis- 
sion; they had placed us in power to discharge the exalted duties apper- 
taming to our station, for the purification and and reform of the Government, 
and the promotion of the manifold interests of the Union. It is for us to 
decide whether we will prove recreant to the trust the People have confid- 
ed in us; and whether, in entering upon a parricidal warfare against our 
own chief, and the head of our own Administration^ we will place an im- 



10 

passable gulf between him and us. The question is a very simple one. 
Would we concede to him the rights of conscience and of judgment in the 
discharge ot' his high and responsible duties which Ave ourselves claim and 
exercise ? It was in our power, by cultivating a spirit of mutual conces- 
sion and affection, to continue to discharge usefully and beneficially the 
great functions vested in us, and to execute the patriotic reforms for 
wjiicli the People have sent us here. But if, in a moment of weak and 
childish resentment, we pettishly destroy our own work, we shall inevita- 
bly incur thecontempt and displeasure of the People of the United States, 
and demonstrate to our country and the world the fact that, whereas the 
difference of opinion between a majority of Congress and the President Avas 
in itself but a misfortune at most, our conduct upon that difference is a de- 
liberate and wanton crime. This will be the consequence of allowing our- 
selves to concur in and countenance the views of the gentleman from Tennes- 
see and the gentleman from Virginia. If, actuated by tlie sentiments which 
those gentlemen avow, and the opinions they entertain,\we proceed, of our 
own motion, to bL)w into fragments the mighty fabric of Whig ascendan- 
cy, and throw up the power we possess, merely because of the difference of 
a single opinion among us, we should go down to posterity as a Congress to 
which the sentence of the historian on Galba would apply, Digniis imperii 
ni imperassel: having held authority just long enough to prove to the 
country that we are morally and intellectually incompetent to carry on the 
Government. 

Mr. C. said tliat he had but one other suggestion to make to the House 
at the present time; and it was this — 

The Chairman here announced that the hour had expired, and Mr. 
Marshall, of Kentucky, obtained the floor, and Mr. Gushing was unable 
to complete the remark he was about to make. If the rule had permitted 
him to proceed, he would have concluded as follows : 

iNIr. CusHiNG had caret\il}y observed the course of events without allow- 
ing alarm on the one hand or excitement on the other to bias his judgment. 
For I'.imself, he had made his election. He believed tliat tiie President of 
the United States was honorable, just, and conscientious as a man; and 
that, as President of the United States, he was animated bv motives of 
the most patriotic desire to consult in all things the welfare and honor of 
the great country which the suffrages of the People and the will of God 
had called him to rule. He (Mr. C.) had reflected on all the probable con- 
sequences of the surrounding events, and he declared his full conviction 
that, not only upon the veto which had already come, but upon another 
veto, if that should come, the Whig party would best consult their own 
honor and the welfare of the country by yielding a frank and manly sup- 
]iort to Mr. Tyler's Administration. And he appealed to that great and 
patriotic mass of men of which the Whig party in Congress and the coun- 
try was composed, to adhere to tliose generous principles of mutual for- 
bearance, by and through which alone they had obtained power ; to repel 
iVom ihein all tendencies of ill-considered and fatally unwise resentment to- 
wards the President, on account of the course Avhich his conscientious con- 
victions of duty had compelled him to pursue ; to maintain a confiding as- 
sociation oetwe(;n themselves and the President, by means of w.hich he and 
they might continue to co-operate together for the public good ; and thus 
to secure to the country a republican odminislration of the Govermuent, 
worthy of the best days of the Republic 



